In article ,
Paul Stevenson wrote:

"Edward Cowling London UK" wrote in message
...

I'd love to know what the military really think about this.

A deep respect I should imagine!

Survival being a basic human need.

Quite.

I've no experience regarding UXB (and no wish to gain any)
but a few years ago (up in the north of Norway) a was part
of a group which came across a dump of 2cm AA ammunition
of WW2 vintage, much of which was lying in a stream bed.
I took the RNoN bomb disposal squad down to the site the next
day and they (very carefully) removed the shells, together with
a large number more they found in the boskage - all //very//
carefully.
Day after that, the bomb disposal specialist called to say
the items had been destroyed (cooked off in a furnace, as usual
with small stuff) and that they have been /extremely/ (actually,
he didn't say "extremely", he was more emphatic than that) dangerous.
Much of the propellant was crystalline, which meant that a very
small jolt could have set it off.

A bomb that's been sitting in the ground for 60-plus years could
be much more sensitive to vibration than it originally was.
Explosives can get very unstable in their old age. Not nice.

--
Andy Breen ~ Speaking for myself, not the University of Wales
"your suggestion rates at four monkeys for six weeks"
(Peter D. Rieden)

In message , Andrew Robert Breen
writes

A bomb that's been sitting in the ground for 60-plus years could
be much more sensitive to vibration than it originally was.
Explosives can get very unstable in their old age. Not nice.

They used AMATOL then, which doesn't have a long shelf life and isn't in
any way water proof. 60+ years buried in mud and you don't have a hair
trigger device..... you have a rusty cylinder full of sludge :-)

When they find the next I'll gladly drive the truck to the dump.

--
Edward Cowling "Must Go - Eldrad Must Live !!"

In message
Edward Cowling London UK wrote:

In message , Andrew Robert Breen
writes

A bomb that's been sitting in the ground for 60-plus years could
be much more sensitive to vibration than it originally was.
Explosives can get very unstable in their old age. Not nice.

They used AMATOL then, which doesn't have a long shelf life and isn't in
any way water proof. 60+ years buried in mud and you don't have a hair
trigger device..... you have a rusty cylinder full of sludge :-)

When they find the next I'll gladly drive the truck to the dump.


Any preference for flowers?

--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html

Graeme Wall wrote:

In message
Edward Cowling London UK wrote:


When they find the next I'll gladly drive the truck to the dump.


Any preference for flowers?

Gypsophylla could be the smart choice - enough blooms for all the bits.

--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9632876.html
(33 105 at Bournemouth, 15 May 1985)

On 7 Jun, 12:30, Edward Cowling London UK
wrote:
In message , Andrew Robert Breen
writes

A bomb that's been sitting in the ground for 60-plus years could
be much more sensitive to vibration than it originally was.
Explosives can get very unstable in their old age. Not nice.

They used AMATOL then, which doesn't have a long shelf life and isn't in
any way water proof. 60+ years buried in mud and you don't have a hair
trigger device..... you have a rusty cylinder full of sludge :-)

Well you could be right, I suppose.

Perhaps this video (CCTV) footage of a 1000-pounder being detonated in
Coventry in March is a fake:

http://videos.icnetwork.co.uk/covent...raph/bomb2.wmv

In which case it would be kind of you to put the Coventry Evening
Telegraph right on the matter:

http://tinyurl.com/42m2nf

It certainly seems to go up with a hell of a bang for a "rusty
cylinder full of sludge".

Ian

Edward Cowling:
They used AMATOL then, which doesn't have a long shelf life ...
you have a rusty cylinder full of sludge :-)

"Ian":
Well you could be right, I suppose.

Perhaps this video (CCTV) footage of a 1000-pounder being detonated in
Coventry in March is a fake:

http://videos.icnetwork.co.uk/covent...raph/bomb2.wmv

In which case it would be kind of you to put the Coventry Evening
Telegraph right on the matter:

http://tinyurl.com/42m2nf

It says 50 kg. That's 110 pounds, not 1000. (For the Coventry UXB;
the Bromley-by-Bow one was bigger.)
--
Mark Brader | "I have on occasion manufactured technical terms that
Toronto | have made it into common use in the literature.
| But not many, and I'm licensed." --John Lawler

On 7 Jun, 12:30, Edward Cowling London UK
wrote:

They used AMATOL then, which doesn't have a long shelf life and isn't in
any way water proof. 60+ years buried in mud and you don't have a hair
trigger device..... you have a rusty cylinder full of sludge :-)

When they find the next I'll gladly drive the truck to the dump.

Did you read this link?:

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/avi...-uxb-3148.html

In particular, did you read this bit?

"Since 1945, at least two bomb-squad members a year have died defusing
similar bombs in Germany."

If only they'd had you around to sling 'em around on a truck.

Ian

On Sat, Jun 07, 2008 at 12:30:56PM +0100, Edward Cowling London UK wrote:

They used AMATOL then, which doesn't have a long shelf life ...

The Germans used all kinds of stuff because they had poor access to raw
materials.

When they find the next I'll gladly drive the truck to the dump.

Please don't drive it past my house.

--
David Cantrell | Official London Perl Mongers Bad Influence